See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290391780

Learning Integrative Thinking

CONFERENCE PAPER MARCH 2014

READS

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Christoph Lattemann
Jacobs University
111 PUBLICATIONS 366 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Christoph Lattemann

Retrieved on: 11 February 2016

Learning Integrative Thinking

Christoph Lattemann*; Kathleen Fritz**
Jacobs University Bremen
CREATOMbuilder, Inc.
Abstract: This paper proposes a new educational framework for imparting integrative thinking.
While literature discusses the innate design capabilities and benefits of design thinking
competencies for businesses there is little outside of higher education discussing how to learn or be
trained in design thinking skills and practices (Howard 2012; Melles 2010) or what is considered
effective training practices. Can creativity be taught? What are the various styles of design
education and how do they differ? What are the outcomes of various types of design education for
business? How can the development of a design education framework help organizations to navigate
and implement integrative thinking programs in an effective and sustainable way?
The presented framework helps to categorize (discuss) different types of design and integrative
education modes by analyzing multiple elements of the various pedagogical delivery systems. This
framework facilitates to define academic standards and learning objectives in the integrative
thinking education. It further helps students and organizations to identify educational gaps in
existing programs.

Introduction
Dunne and Martin (2006) argue that integrative thinking, in its various forms, offers something of value to
business, which can complement established analytical techniques in management. Discussions about co-creation,
design thinking or integrative thinking is most commonly framed as a method to achieve innovation outcomes, and
by extension competitive advantages, through the design of products and services that better meet the needs of the
market. In general, the main idea of integrative thinking is that the ways professional designers solve problems is of
value to firms trying to innovate and to societies trying to make change happen (Kimbell 2011).
Until today, the real ways in which design innovation and integrative thinking can improve organizations
remain widely ignored (Heiman and Burnett 2010, p.1). Therefore, both academics and management practitioners
criticize MBA programs for their lack of relevance to practitioners, the values they impart to students, and their
teaching methods. But what is effective training in a business and organizational context in integrative design?
Conversely, how can designers prepare for immersion into the business world? How can educational programs in
integrative thinking sustainably feed the innovation cycle on an individual and organizational level?
To answer these questions, integrative thinking will be defined and an outline of design education models
will be discussed. Then, this paper proposes a framework which helps to define academic standards in integrative
thinking education and assists students and organizations to identify educational gaps in existing programs.

Integrative Thinking in Education Related Work

Definition of Integrative Thinking
There is no common understanding of the definition of integrative thinking. The conceptions of integrative
thinking and design in the field of business and engineering are framed by a variety of labels (Young 2010) including
most prominently design thinking and service design (Campbell 2009; Guardian 2010; Kimbell 2009),
experience design, user- or human-centered design (IDEO 2009; Sato 2009), integrative thinking (Dunne
and Martin 2006; Sato 2009), social innovation (Guardian 2010; Manzini 2006), and co-creation (Lattemann and
Robra-Bissantz 2006), just to mention a few. All of these concepts integrate design in the field of business and
engineering and reflect project-based work flow around wicked problems.
There are several perspectives on design. Margolin (1995) defines design from an interactive perspective.
Design is a transdisciplinary method to enable critical thinking by focusing on the relation between design and social
action. Other authors such as Razzouk and Shute (2012) define design as an analytical and creative process that
engages a person in experiments, prototyping feedback, and redesign.

In the following, we understand the term integrative thinking as an umbrella term for several approaches
and, similar to Buchanan (1992), as a mental shift from a focus on giving form to objects (Kimbell 2009) and
towards a cognitive process to problem (re)framing and (wicked) problem-solving that acknowledges the social
aspects of design work. From a didactical perspective, this shift towards a problem-based learning goes in line with a
constructivist concept of learning.
The following key themes are proposed as constituting the transdisciplinary approach of integrative thinking
in practice and are mentioned in most of the literature:

Human-centered: Places people at the centre of the design process, rather than tackling design challenges from
internal, organizational or technical frames.
Research-based: Qualitative, ethnographic and observational research techniques applied in the aid of
responding to design challenges.
Broader contextual view: Expanding the design question to a wider frame of reference, to examine the system
and context in which design challenges exist.
Collaborative & multi-disciplinary: Exploratory approaches to problem-solving, including co-design methods
specifically designed to encourage participation from a broad array of stakeholders and multi-disciplinary design
teams.
Iterative delivery, critique & prototyping: Use of iterative project management approaches and prototyping,
incorporating rapid feedback loops from end-users, to evaluate and evolve ideas and prospective designs.

Integrative Thinking Can it be learned?

Can design and creativity be trained? Can a shift in the mental process be imparted? According to Cross
(2008), design ability is something that everyone has, to some extent, because it is embedded in our brains as a
natural cognitive function. Like other forms of intelligence and ability it may be possessed, or may be manifested in
performance, at higher levels by some people than by others. Like other forms of intelligence and ability, design
intelligence is not simply a given talent or gift, but can be trained and developed (Cross 2008).
According to Simons approach of a science of design, design can be learned, because it comprises
analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrines about the design process (Simon 1969, p. 58). It
applies methods from empirical sciences, mathematics, and logic (Meadows et al. 1972). Schn (1983) criticized this
technical perspective of design and urged design studies to attend to reflection-in-practice. This instructional design
practice states that becom[ing] a professional involves not only what we know and can do, but also who we are
(becoming). It involves the integration of knowing, acting, and being in the form of professional ways of being that
unfold over time (DallAlba 2009, p. 34).
Thinking like a designer involves different kinds of abilities and competences in different fields of
knowledge such as conceiving, planning and making products (Buchanan 1999; Scheer et al. 2011). There is no
doubt about that teaching of design requires a multi-epistemic process (Eagen et al. 2010). Designers mix and match
methods and techniques drawn to suit the specific needs of the design challenge at hand. This is why recent research,
in particular from design education pedagogy, understands integrative thinking as an instructional design practice
within the context of constructivism. Through providing a conceptual model for learners (Hokanson and Clinton
2012) and qualities in training certain skills, integrative thinking education is predisposed towards a constructive way
of learning. This means that people are trained in the openness for new ideas and exploration, in creative thinking
and other meta-cognitive competencies (Scheer et al. 2011). In the idea of constructivism, the learner is self-directed,
creative, innovative, and individually self-organizing knowledge. Learning in the constructivist perspective is a
process of constantly adapting to situations which consist of ever-changing relations between subject, object and
context. In this approach, knowledge is gained through individual experiences (Reich 2008; Kolb 1984). Kolb (1984)
defines the learning process as a four step process: experiencing (concrete experience), reflecting (reflective
observation), thinking (abstract conceptualization), and acting (active experimentation) in a highly iterative fashion.
There is no doubt about that multi-epistemic process is currently missing in business schools (Eagen et al.
2010; Dunnes and Martin 2006). Education today is centered on specific disciplines and isolated subjects. A
connection to the real-life context is often missing. This is why Ghoshal (2005) and Pfeffer and Fong (2004) are

calling for a fundamental reorientation of business school curricula. Martin (2006) is not specific about what courses
would be added to the curriculum, and which might be discontinued.
Lawson and Dorst (2009) state that there is not the one best way to train design. They distinguish between
seven levels of design expertise: Naive, Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Expert, Master and
Visionary. In their understanding, these levels of design expertise roughly correspond with seven different ways of
operating in design practice, namely: 1. choice based, 2. convention based, 3. situation based, 4. strategy based, 5.
experience based, 6. creating new schemata and 7. redefinition of the field. These seven approaches each come with
their own practices. (Dorst 2011, p. 526).
This discussion shows that a framework for teaching modes in integrative thinking is necessary to be
developed. It must reflect epistemological and ontological dimensions of thinking, acting and being, and must
overcome a separation of mind from body, in the form of embodied understanding of practice. (Adams et al., p.
590).

Evaluation Educational Design Approaches

An Educational Framework for Imparting Integrative Thinking
According to Kimbell (2011) there are three prerequisites for a sustainable anchoring of integrative thinking
in organizations: First, people have to understand the concept and ideas of integrative thinking, the value of design in
and for business and the knowledge about the process (theory). Second, they have to change their way of thinking by
experiencing and practicing integrative thinking (cognition). Third, people need to change their individual mindset in
a sustainable way in order to be able to make a change in organizations (resource). This is phrased by Dunne and
Martin (2006) in the way that people must be able to transform a traditional firm to a design shop. (p.514).
Feature
Basic Characteristic
Flow of Work
Style of Work
Mode of Thinking

Source of Status
Dominant Attitude
Constraints

From Traditional Firm

Responders/Followers to Innovation
Ongoing Task
Permanent Assignments
Defined Roles
Wait until it is right
Deductive
Inductive
Managing big budgets and large staffs
We can only do what we have budget to do
Constraints are the enemy

To Design Shops
Drivers of Innovation
Projects
Defined terms
Collaborative
Iterative
Deductive
Inductive
Abductive
Solving wicked problems
Nothing cant be done
Constraints increase the challenge and
excitement

Tab. 1: Traditional Firm vs. Design Shop (adapted to Dunne and Martin 2006)
Traditional firms are tentatively following trends and innovations. Design shops are on the other hand the
drivers of innovation who give input for traditional firms. According to Dunnes and Martin (2006), design shops
work on projects that have defined terms; whereas a traditional firm sees itself as engaged in an ongoing task. The
traditional firm treats its activities as an ongoing assignment even though it is really a bundle of projects. As a result,
it ends up with big budgets and large staff; whereas, for a design firm, its all about solving problems. The designers
who work on what are called wicked problems (i.e. problems which have no clear solution and have broad impact
over multiple systems) do it through collaborative integrative thinking, using abductive logic, which means the logic
of what might be. Conversely, deductive and inductive logic are the logic of what should be or what is. The attitudes
change to everything is possible and constraints are perceived as challenges and excitements.
Following Kimbells (2011) reasoning for a sustainable anchoring of integrative thinking in organizations
the following four dimensions of an educational framework for integrative thinking can be derived:
1. Impart knowledge of the general idea about creativity and integrative thinking (general theory)
2. Train and experience individuals of how to use integrative thinking in real-world settings (cognition)

3. Change the mindset and cognitive skills of individuals (affection)

4. Enable individuals to change the mindset of organizations to guarantee a continuous usage of integrative
thinking (resources)
These four dimensions can be visualized as follows (see fig 1):

Fig.: 1 Kimbells way of describing Design Thinking

Educational framework: concepts

for imparting integrative thinking

For the community, this framework can help to define academic standards in integrative thinking education.
It further helps students and organizations to identify educational gaps in programs and assists program coordinators
to properly define the high-level learning objectives to reach academic standard after completion of the program.
Analyzing Educational Design Approaches
In the past 20 years various academic and training programs to impart integrative thinking approaches have
emerged. These programs show a wide range of forms including ad hoc courses in design/integrative thinking,
classical instructional programs in classrooms, firm-specific executive education programs, full-fledged MBA
programs, approaches of leveraging in-house design resources for educational purposes (Heiman and Burnett 2008)
and in-house design thinking departments to involving firm internal staff in firms projects.
Some programs are based on single courses, instructed by individual professionals, such as the MBA class
for executives in creativity skills at the San Francisco State University. Some courses are co-taught by professors
from design, business, and other departments, such as at the Jacobs University Bremen. Other pedagogy-based
concepts rely on part-time or fulltime master-level programs such as at Stanford's School of Design Thinking.
Others, such as a partnership between various schools in Helsinki or the Potsdams Hasso Plattner Institute of Design
(d.school), bring together students from different universities for cross-disciplinary project work. An innovative
approach is the dual degree program in business administration and design from Illinois Institute of Technology. All
of these programs cover parts of the proposed educational framework in their curriculum but only very few programs
cover all four aspects.
Heiman and Burnett (2008) and Matthews and Wrigley (2011) identify different approaches to impart
integrative thinking.
1. Pedagogy-based solutions outside the firm (Management Development Trainings)
These approaches have in common that students are trained in a university/school setting. Trainers are
normally university faculty with academic and practical experiences in integrative thinking. An adequate
environment (room, technology, furniture, etc.) is offered. These approaches focus on the theory and
cognitive learning components.
2. Solutions in the firm (Human Relation Initiatives)
In-firm trainings take place in firms by practitioners or by well experienced in-house trainers or from
consultancy companies or universities. Advanced in-firm based approaches allow for changing from

traditional work patterns to something closer to a design shop where the focus is on the flow of work life,
style of work, mode of thinking, source of status and dominant attitude. These approaches are mostly
project-based and focus on the cognitive and affective learning components.
For evaluating various integrative thinking programs, they need to be sorted - in a first step - according to
the classification from Heiman and Burnett (2008) and Matthews and Wrigley (2011). In a second step, programs
need to be evaluated according to the criteria proposed in the educational framework. The following matrix helps to
evaluate programs in a structured way (see tab. 2).
Evaluation
criteria
Pedagogical
Concepts

(1) Imparting/
understanding
knowledge about
process and idea

(2) Experience in
practicing
integrative thinking

(3) (Sustainable)
change of individual
mindset

(4) (Sustainable)
change of
organizational mind
set

Education outside
the firm
Subcategorie 1- n
In-firm-based
solutions
Subcategorie 1- n
Tab. 2 Evaluation Matrix for Programs for Integrative Thinking
We suggest to rate the courses and programs by using a three point scale or a color coding scheme: +1 fully
achieved (green); 0 achieved to a certain degree (yellow), and -1 not achieved (red) for each criteria.

Evaluation of Integrative Thinking Programs

Scott et al. (2004) state that the most successful creativity training efforts are those that are specific to the
domain of interest, and teach specific creativity-related cognitive techniques. Naturally domain specific interests of
firms can be trained best by providing in-house educational programs. Specific creativity-related cognitive
techniques may be better taught in external settings where the environment allows students to concentrate on specific
methodologies and cognitive techniques. In general, many of the approaches, mentioned for example by Heiman and
Burnett (2008), in particular the outside-firm approaches, focus on transferring knowledge on the design idea and
processes and experience the integrative thinking process by running some artificial or real-life projects. In-firmbased solutions focus on the change of the mindset of the organization. The teaching of the design thinking ideology
is lacking.
Hence, there seems to be a trade-off in the learning results between educational in-house solution and
educational models of outside firm trainings. External programs may serve to understand the idea and the process of
integrative thinking and to change the individual mindset (criteria 1 and 3 in our framework). Firm-internal programs
tend to help more to change the organizational mind set and to gather experiences in real-life projects (criteria 2 and
4 in our framework).
Table 3 shows an example of how to apply the suggested framework. Three outside-of-firm and three
inside-of-firm program types, suggested by Heiman and Burnett (2008), were evaluated on the basis of the four
extracted criteria: 1. Imparting/ understanding knowledge about process and idea; 2. Experience in practicing
integrative thinking; 3. (Sustainable) Change of individual mindset; 4. (Sustainable) Change of organizational mind
set.

Outside-of-firm programs types include:

1. Stand-alone courses in universities: All approaches aim at imparting relevant design thinking skills to
high-school, graduate and undergraduate students as well as to managers (Mellesa et al. 2012). These courses offer
regularly a workload of three to 20 hours by providing three hour introductory trainings session to three day
workshops.
2. Firm specific executive education programs: These programs offer custom-tailored classes to particular
firms to fit their needs and to train their executives in integrative design/design thinking. Groups normally work on
projects after a short theoretical introduction. Members in one cohort are quite homogenous as they consist regularly
of managers from one firm. These courses normally comprise of a three day to a one week workshop.
3. Master programs (MBA) in integrative thinking: These programs cover either 30 (part-time) to 60 (fulltime) credit points with a workload of around 900 (part-time) to 1800 (full-time) hours. Students in these programs
work on several projects, starting with small (1-3 days) projects up to three month projects. Students work in a team
of people from various heterogeneous disciplines.
Inside-of-firm program types include:
1. Adhoc approaches to integrative thinking: Institutes such as the D-Forge Lab at the Jacobs University in
Bremen or the D-School at the Hasso Plattner Institute in Potsdam and many consultancy companies offer one to
three day seminars for firms. This approach can be described as small firm-specific (customer-tailored) executive
trainings.
2. Leveraging in-house design resources: In-house resources such as engineers and designers capacities
within an organization are used to impart and spread integrative thinking in the organization. Companies noted for
their successful innovations often have designers, or design-trained managers, in senior positions.
3. In-house design thinking departments: Trained design thinkers are heading a specific project-based or
staff function. For the development of in-house design thinking departments it needs the design manager and the
design leader. Design managers optimize resources to implement programs in the most effective and profitable way.
Evaluation criteria

(1) Imparting/
understanding
knowledge about
process and idea

(2) Experience in
practicing
integrative
thinking

(3) (Sustainable)
change of
individual mindset

(4) (Sustainable)
change of
organizational mind
set

Stand alone courses

at Universities

-1

-1

Firm-specific
executive education
programs

-1

MBA Program in
Integrative
Thinking

-1

Ad hoc approaches
to design thinking

-1

-1

Leveraging inhouse design

resources

-1

In-house design

Pedagogical
Concepts
Outside the firm

In-firm-based solutions

thinking
departments
Tab. 3 Example of evaluation of pedagogical concepts.
Without going into greater details, former studies show that different pedagogical concepts for integrative
thinking have different outcomes in respect to the proposed criteria. Table 3 shows a very high-level exemplified
evaluation of the achievements resulting from different program types. Specific programs can vary from this pattern.
A generalization should be treated with caution. Individual programs need to be evaluated on a one-to-one basis.
This framework supports the conclusion from Glocken (2009) that a holistic understanding of design
leadership is needed in order to maximize efficiency and effect and to understanding the centrality of the
customer is essential to the fuller conceptualization and the operationalization of service design (p. 34). Programs
which combine executive education with a PBL-oriented approach with a profound theoretical basis are rare but
promise to create a powerful and effective tool for learning design thinking in an outside-the-firm classroom setting.

Concluding Summary
This paper proposes a framework to classify educational integrative thinking programs. It allows the
evaluation of existing programs on a rather high level. Through understanding the higher level outcomes required by
both students and businesses, this framework can begin to inform decision making around integrative education
options and appropriateness of setting. It can also serve as a check list for integrative design programs on closing
gaps between outside and inside firm program types especially in the areas of individual and organizational mindset
change.
However, instructors, students and teaching institutions may be interest in obtaining insight into more
detailed questions such as raised by Owen (2007): How long should a program be? Who are the best candidates for a
program? What levels of experience and schooling should be required for entrance to a program? What is the ideal
mix of design tools and thinking from other fields to best prepare students for their working environment? What mix
of academic and internship experience should be planned? To be able to answer these questions, the proposed
framework must be further developed.

References
Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and
being; Design Studies Vol. 32 (6), pp. 521-532.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking, Design Issues, 8(2), pp. 5-21.
Buchanan, R. (1999). Design Research and the New Learning, Design Issues, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 3-23, MIT Press.
Campbell, E. (2009). You know more than you think you do: Design as resourcefulness & self-reliance
www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/215457/RSA_designandsociety_pamphlet.pdf
Clinton G., Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designer: the
Design/Creativity loop model. Educational Technology Research and Development.Vol. 60(1), pp.111130.
Cross, N. (2008). Design Thinking as a Form of Intelligence. in: Design Thinking Research Symposia. Open
University.
DallAlba (2009). Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of becoming Educational Philosophy and
Theory, Vol. 41 (1), pp. 3445
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of Design Thinking. Design Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 521-532.
Dunne, D., Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and
discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 5(4), pp. 512523.
Eagen, W., Cukier, W., Bauer, R., Ngwenyama, O. (2010). Design Thinking: Can Creativity Be Taught?,
International Conference The future of Education.
Glocken, J. (2009). Perspectives on Design Leadership and Design Thinking and How They Relate to European
Service Industries, The Design Management Institute, p. 33-48.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4(1): 7591.

Grant, Y. (2010). Design thinking and sustainability. http://zum.io/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Design-thinkingand-sustainability.pdf

Guardian (2010). Service Design: Design innovation in the public and private sectors', The Guardian, 15, March
2010.
Heimann, B., Burnett, B. (2010). The Role of Design Thinking in Firms and Management Education, Stanford
University.
Hokanson, B., Clinton, G. (2010). Design as knowledge construction: Shared cognition, studio and critique. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the AECT Convention, Anaheim, CA.
Howard, Z. (2012). From concept to capability: Developing design thinking within a professional services firm. DRS
2012 Bangkok.
IDEO (2009). Human Centered Design Toolkit, http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/work/case-studies/pdfs/
IDEO_HCD_ToolKit_Complete_for_Download.pdf>
Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond Design Thinking: Design-as-practice and design-in-practice,CRESC Conference,
Manchester, September 2009 .
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I; Design and Culture, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 285-306
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall
Inc., New Jersey.
Lattemann, C., Robra-Bissantz, S. (2006). Customer Governance - IC Based Concepts for a Successful Customer
Integration, in: Hannula, M., Jrvelin, A.-M., Sepp, M. (eds.) Frontiers of e-Business Research
(FeBR2005).
Lawson, B., Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford. England: Architectural Press.
Manzini, E. (2002). Context-based wellbeing and the concept of regenerative solution: A conceptual framework for
scenario building and sustainable solutions development. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, no. 2,
pp. 141148.
Margolin, V. (1995). The product milieu and social action. In R. Buchanan and V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering
design: Explorations in design studies, pp. 121-145. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Martin, R. (2007). Introductory text for the Rotman School website, http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/businessdesign/.
Matthews, J., Wrigley, C. (2011). Design and Design Thinking in Business and Management Education and
Development, ANZAM 2011 The Future of Work and Organisations.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, N. L., Randers, J., Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits of growth, a report for the club of
Romes project on the predicament of mankind Potomac, London.
Mellesa, G., Howardb, Z., Thompson-Whitesidec, S. (2012). Teaching Design Thinking: Expanding Horizons in
Design Education. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31, pp. 162 166.
Owen, C. L. (2005). Design Thinking. What It Is. Why It Is Different. Where It Has New Value. A speech given at
the International Conference on Design Research and Education for the Future,
https://www.id.iit.edu/media/cms_page_media/203/owen_korea05.pdf
Pfeffer, J., Fong, C. (2004). The business school business: Some lessons from the US experience. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(8), pp. 15011520.
Porcini, M. (2009) Your New Design Process Is Not EnoughHire Design Thinkers! New Pathways to Integrated
Design Success, Design Management Review, Vol. 20 (3), pp.7-19
Razzouk, R., Shute. V. (2012). What is Design thinking and Why is it important. Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 82 (3), pp. 330-348.
Reich, K.(2008): Konstruktivistische Didaktik: Lehr und Studienbuch. Beltz.
Sato, S. (2009). Beyond good: great innovations through design. Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 30 (2/3), pp. 4049.
Scheer, A., Noweski,C., Meinel C. (2011). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action; Design and
Technology Education: An International Journal 17.3, pp.8-19.
Schn, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Scott G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review.
Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 16 (4), pp. 361388.
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial MIT Press, Cambridge.